tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post2412389791515384507..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Maybe America Was Meant to be a Christian Nation After AllBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30590655658823904792010-01-03T10:16:57.226-07:002010-01-03T10:16:57.226-07:00Brad stated:
"Hell, I bet that most of them ...Brad stated:<br /><br />"Hell, I bet that most of them have never read anything substantial from the founders themselves."<br /><br />You would win that bet. The Dispatches crowd probably is one of the most education groups you will find but often resort to venomous attacks based on ignorance.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30042658373303290682010-01-02T19:33:03.814-07:002010-01-02T19:33:03.814-07:00I found the source for the claim that "New Yo...I found the source for the claim that "New York did not place any religious restrictions on officeholders." It comes from, as you might guess, Kramnick and Moore in their book "<i>The Godless Constitution</i>," page 31. Here is the claim:<br /><br /> The two exceptions among the state constitutions were those of Virginia and New York. In the former, (with Madison's help) Jefferson's "Statute for Religious Freedom," passed in 1786, specified that no religious test could be applied to the holding of public office. Even more interesting was New York's constitution, which in 1777 self-consciously repudiated tests that sought to maintain "any particular denomination of Christians." The absence of religious tests would, the New York constitution claimed, "guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind."<br /><br /><br />The NYS Consitution did, indeed, endorse "the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference," but NYS statute required that a candidate for public office subscribe to a religious test oath in the form:<br /><br /> I, A. B. do solemnly swear and declare in the presence of Almighty God, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the State of New York as a free and independent State; and that I will in all things to the best of my knowledge and ability, do my duty, as a good subject of the said State ought to do; so help me God.<br /><br /><br />Cosequently, contrary to what Kramnick & Moore indicate in their next paragraph, it was only the "principles of Virginia and [not] New York [that] were written into the new federal Constitution, 'without much debate.'"Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27018604673209753172010-01-02T17:09:27.082-07:002010-01-02T17:09:27.082-07:00KOI writes:
This is a very complex topic. Agreed ...KOI writes:<br /><br /><em>This is a very complex topic. Agreed to all you said. It is just a shame that so many of the abusively outspoken on both sides seem to be the most ignorant.</em><br /><br />Or perhaps or appropriately put, the it is a shame that so many Americans are so willing to let partisan politics lead them down an all-or-nothing road as it applies to this issue. Like JRB stated, most KNOWLEDGEABLE secularists aren't trying to eradicate God and religion but simply looking to secure religious diversity and freedom, while most KNOWLEDGEABLE Christian Nation advocates aren't wanting a theocracy. <br /><br />It's the huddled (dare I say stupid) masses who let the Glenn Beck's and Howard Zinn's of the world dictate their entire understanding of the founding era. Hell, I bet that most of them have never read anything substantial from the founders themselves.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4928297889635015652010-01-02T17:02:15.670-07:002010-01-02T17:02:15.670-07:00Jrb,
This is a very complex topic. Agreed to all...Jrb,<br /><br />This is a very complex topic. Agreed to all you said. It is just a shame that so many of the abusively outspoken on both sides seem to be the most ignorant. Go watch who shows up at Dispatches when this topic comes up.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1389412699311411142010-01-02T16:46:40.650-07:002010-01-02T16:46:40.650-07:00KOI - Most people that state "Secular Nation&...KOI - <i>Most people that state "Secular Nation" are ignorant of all that is written here. That saddens me.</i><br /><br />Don't be so sad, many who advance the secular state or Godless constitution theses are not ignorant of the facts that are written <i>about</i> here while they may be ignorant of what <i>is</i> written here. Not everybody has heard of here yet.<br /><br />And, not everyone making the secular state and/or Godless constitution argument is advancing a secular nation or Godless nation argument. The distinctions have been made "here" before and it would be helpful to make clear the distinctions. <br /><br />When someone is defending the secular state or Godless constitution they may concurrently be making an argument for religious value and freedom. Not mutually exclusive.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89862528438392011672010-01-02T15:37:32.469-07:002010-01-02T15:37:32.469-07:00A minor point: Fea wrote, "[Post-colonial] Ne...A minor point: Fea wrote, "[Post-colonial] New York did not place any religious restrictions on officeholders." I'd like to know the particular source for this statement. My source, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=D8GwAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA13&dq=1778+%22Laws+of+the+state+of+New+York%22+%22almighty+god%22&ei=Fsc_S5udLpe6yQT16OGLCw&cd=1#" rel="nofollow">Laws of the state of New York, Passed in the First Session of the Senate and Assembly of the Said State, Beginning in the Tenth Day of September, 1777, and continued by Adjournments, and ending with the Last Day of June, 1778</a>, Chaper 6, pages 13 and 14, indicates otherwise.Ray Sollerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07950061062767093373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88446732848475475532010-01-02T15:09:47.985-07:002010-01-02T15:09:47.985-07:00"Some did so right after ratification. Seven ..."Some did so right after ratification. Seven states still have not. But 48 of the 50 states' constitutions still have God in them."<br /><br />A powerful point!King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32418214394139272792010-01-02T15:07:42.296-07:002010-01-02T15:07:42.296-07:00Brad stated:
"But does it not offend you whe...Brad stated:<br /><br />"But does it not offend you when you hear the Barton's, D. James Kennedy's of the world?"<br /><br />Some of the things Barton says are true. Kennedy I think claims TJ was a evangelical Christian is that is absurd. But yes when they exaggerate is disturbs me. When church controls state or state controls church it is never good. But to throw the baby out with the bath water is perhaps a worse idea.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69559543086634945592010-01-02T15:02:55.625-07:002010-01-02T15:02:55.625-07:00KOI writes:
Most people that state "Secular ...KOI writes:<br /><br /><em>Most people that state "Secular Nation" are ignorant of all that is written here. That saddens me.</em><br /><br />True, true, true. <br /><br />But does it not offend you when you hear the Barton's, D. James Kennedy's of the world?Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70126253414230971892010-01-02T15:01:09.361-07:002010-01-02T15:01:09.361-07:00Touche.Touche.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29914495237527840032010-01-02T14:23:47.871-07:002010-01-02T14:23:47.871-07:00Now, I imagine that those who will debate this poi...<i><br />Now, I imagine that those who will debate this point will say things like, "the idea of what constituted a nation wasn't solved until the Civil War and the 14th Amendment"</i><br /><br />Yes. I hope our readers will follow Dr. Fea's link to the essay "A Roof Without Walls," as it's fresh ground on what the Founders conceived of as the United States as a "nation."<br /><br />http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/dfg/amrv/murrin.htm<br /><br /><i>"these states have since amended their constitutions to reflect the ideas of the federal charter" </i><br /><br />Some did so right after ratification. Seven states still have not. But 48 of the 50 states' constitutions still have God in them.<br /><br />http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/08/in-answer-to-godless-constitution.html <br /><br />But there are few outside the religious fringe who argue for anything resembling theocracy in 2009, and even the most "Christian" states were not nearly theocracies. There is nothing to "return" to. [Even "Dominionists" argue for a <i>voluntary</i> theocracy. Heh. As if.]<br /><br />On the other side, however, there are many who argue the Founding was deistic, and that "godlessness" of the US Constitution demands we drop the Judeo-Christian ["Christian-y"] worldview---<i>ethos</i>---of the Founding in favor of a "neutral" mechanistic, legalistic regime of "godlessness."<br /><br />Even the ratification of the 14th Amendment didn't render 48 of the 50 states' constitutions unconstitutional.<br /><br />Or mebbe it did, depending on whatever the Supreme Court rules at some future date. Nothing would surprise me.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54899873660044739122010-01-02T14:11:14.731-07:002010-01-02T14:11:14.731-07:00Most people that state "Secular Nation" ...Most people that state "Secular Nation" are ignorant of all that is written here. That saddens me.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43070935397962045302010-01-02T13:22:49.788-07:002010-01-02T13:22:49.788-07:00Well, we are sure off to a good start for 2010! T...Well, we are sure off to a good start for 2010! Thanks for posting this here, Tom. I read this on Fea's blog and was thinking of doing the same.<br /><br />I think Fea makes a very good point. The state constitutions really are the best "ammunition" available for the Christian Nation crowd. They provide strong historical support for many of their general claims that America was founded on religious (Christian-y) principles.<br /><br />Now, I imagine that those who will debate this point will say things like, "the idea of what constituted a nation wasn't solved until the Civil War and the 14th Amendment" or "these states have since amended their constitutions to reflect the ideas of the federal charter" or "just because the founders deferred religion to the states doesn't mean they were right. After all didn't they 'screw up' the slavery issue as well?"<br /><br />However, I think there is a more basic argument to be made here. Just as the secularists downplay these state constitutions in an effort to prove their case, the "Christian Nation" apologists, I believe, read to much into these state charters. Yes, the founders may have deferred the issue to be settled in the states but they didn't do so out of a desire to create a "Christian Nation." They did so because they believed in the state's right to choose was was best for its citizens. Whether this was the right choice or not is another matter entirely. <br /><br />Personally, I believe that these state charters (which have clearly evolved over time) are a further illustration of America's religious/providential founding and heritage. However, I don't see these charters providing for exclusively "Christian" roots, nor do they shut the book on the matter After all, which flavor of "Christianity" was the American Christianity? Which "Christian Nationalism" was the American Christian Nationalism? In other words, many of these state charters supported a different take on what "Christianity" was and how it was to be applied to the state and its people.<br /><br />Now, I do believe (as TVD has put it in the past) that America's origins are "Christian-y." However, I think we should reject the idea that these state charters close the book on the matter. Quite the contrary. I believe they complicate it. <br /><br />But they do prove that America was founded to be a religious nation.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.com